※ 國立清華大學語言所102學年度第二學期專題演講六 ※

演講者： Lawrence A. Reid (University of Hawai’i)

演講題目：On the Origin of Suppletive SAY Verbs in Some Philippine Languages

時間：2014 年 05 月 06 日 (星期二)  中午 12 時 30 分

地點：清大人社院 B305 室

講題摘要：

Suppletion, the occurrence of phonologically unrelated forms within a single, usually inflectional paradigm, such as the various forms of the English verb be, such as is, are, was, and were, are very common among the world’s languages, but have received relatively little attention in Austronesian languages.  Typically appearing in commonly used forms, such as verbs say, and give, both of which often have suppletive forms in Austronesian languages, understanding their origins throws light not only on patterns of historical change but on contact between languages from which some of the suppletive forms originate.

Several Philippine languages in the Central Cordilleran language, particularly Bontok, Kankanay, Balangao, Ifugao and Kalinga, show suppletive variants for the verb ‘say’ occurring as the quotative index of quotation sentences, as in Central Bontok:

1.  Khinina-ang Bontok (Central Cordilleran, Northern Luzon)

              a.   Ya    kanan=cha=ay      mangwáni=en,    “Linpas    cha   Tomag-ong.”

                    and say=gen.3pl=lig  saying=quo          finished    pl     Tomag-ong

                    ‘And they said, “Tomag-ong and his companion finished it.”’(Reid 1992: S09-66)

              b.   Kinwáni=na     kano  en,    “Khawis  tay           inkali=yak,       ‘Ay   into=kayo            man,’

                    said=gen.3sg   rprt   quo good         because  call=nom.1sg   int   where=nom.2pl  stnc

                    ya    kanak=en                chakayo  nan    nangwáni=en, ‘Á=ka=s                          na,’     ya

                    and say.gen.1sg=quo  2pl          spec  said=quo          come=nom.2sg=loc   dem1  and

                    oméy=ak         et      faken   ipokhaw,  ay    ótot.

                    go=nom.1sg   seq   not       person      lig   rat

                    ‘She said, “It was good because I called out, ‘Where are you,’ and I thought you were the ones answering, ‘Come here,’ and I went and it wasn't a person, it was a rat.”’(Reid 1992: S01-39)

 The choice between the two forms is based on whether the form carries perfective aspect (kinwáni) or not (kanan).  Various other restrictions exist on the choice of form, such as only the former can occur as a gerundive nominalization, and only the latter can carry the meaning of ‘mistakenly think’.

This paper will discuss the possible sources of the two forms, drawing on suggestions discussed in the literature by Maiden (2004, To appear) and Juge (2013).  It will be shown that a variety of both phonological and morphological changes are involved resulting in morphological similarity between competing forms in related languages, some of which were borrowed into Bontok to replace inherited forms.  Various common morphological processes found in the target languages the development of which has not before been explained, can be shown to have their origin in developments associated with the spread of suppletive forms across the family.